VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #0027/01 0400940
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O R 090858Z FEB 10
FM USMISSION CD GENEVA
TO RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/CJCS WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/CNO WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO IMMEDIATE 0042
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0063
INFO RUEHGV/USMISSION CD GENEVA
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV 0042
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 0042
RUEHTA/AMEMBASSY ASTANA 0042

S E C R E T CD GENEVA 000027 
 
SIPDIS 
DEPT FOR T, VCI AND EUR/PRA 
DOE FOR NNSA/NA-24 
CIA FOR WINPAC 
JSCS FOR J5/DDGSA 
SECDEF FOR OSD(P)/STRATCAP 
NAVY FOR CNO-N5JA AND DIRSSP 
AIRFORCE FOR HQ USAF/ASX AND ASXP 
DTRA FOR OP-OS OP-OSA AND DIRECTOR 
NSC FOR LOOK 
DIA FOR LEA 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 2020/02/09 
TAGS: PARM KACT MARR PREL RS US
SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA (SFO-GVA-VII):(U) 
INSPECTION PROTOCOL WORKING GROUP MEETINGS, DECEMBER 14, 2009 
 
REF: 09 GENEVA 1212(SFO-GVA-VII-162 CABLE 4 OF 12 CABLES) 
 
CLASSIFIED BY: Rose A. Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary, Department 
of State, VCI; REASON: 1.4(B), (D) 
 
¶1.  (U) This is SFO-GVA-VII-138. 
 
 
 
¶2.  (U) Meeting Dates:  December 14, 2009 
 
                 Time:  10:00 A.M. - 1:00 P.M. 
 
                Place:  U.S. Mission, Geneva 
 
 
 
                Time:  3:30 P.M. - 6:00 P.M. 
 
               Place:  U.S. Mission, Geneva 
 
------- 
 
SUMMARY 
 
------- 
 
¶3.  (S) The Inspection Protocol Working Group (IPWG), co-chaired by 
Secretary of Defense Representative Dr. Warner and Russian Ministry 
of Defense Representative Col Ilin, met twice on December 14, 2009, 
to review Article XI of the treaty and Sections VI-X of Part V of 
the Protocol.  Discussion focused on inspection activities 
regarding converted systems, particularly the B-1B and to a lesser 
extent the SSGNs; ways of making the Protocol less specific and 
wordy; and parameters and rules for inspections.  Of note, the 
Russian side confirmed that it would list the RS-24 as an existing 
type of ICBM in the START Follow-on Treaty.  End summary. 
 
¶4.  (U) SUBJECT SUMMARY:  Article XI - Discussion and to 
Conforming; Sections VI and VII; Afternoon Session, Section VII; 
Section VIII-X; The Full Part V of the Protocol to Conforming; 
Annexes; and Russian Decision-Making on Mobiles. 
 
 
----------------------------------------- 
ARTICLE XI - DISCUSSION AND TO CONFORMING 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶5.  (S) The meeting began with a review of Article XI.  The U.S. 
side accepted the Russian formulations in Paragraph 1.  For 
Paragraph 2, the sides discussed the inspection regime for B-1Bs in 
the "intermediate period" between entry-into-force (EIF) and the 
full reconversion of the B-1Bs.  Warner emphasized that the United 
States would not accept a prohibition on the co-location of nuclear 
and non-nuclear heavy bombers.  Warner and Ilin agreed to defer to 
the Agreed Statement being drafted on this matter.  Having made 
some wording changes, the sides agreed to the remainder of Article 
XI, with the exception of outstanding substantive brackets on the 
B-1Bs and conversion or elimination exhibitions.  The sides agreed 
to send the Article to conforming. 
 
------------------- 
SECTIONS VI AND VII 
------------------- 
 
¶6.  (S) The sides worked through Section VI of Part V of the 
Protocol.  Debate focused on the regime for inspections at 
submarine bases, particularly with respect to the SSGNs, and on 
inspections of heavy bombers.  Warner took time to encourage the 
Russians to accept the application of unique identifiers to all 
systems. 
 
¶7.  (S) Ilin devoted special attention to the B-1B issue throughout 
the morning session, underlining that the conversion process 
outlined under START had not been satisfactory to the Russians and 
had left a lingering mistrust.  He outlined a proposed three-stage 
process for the conversion of the B-1Bs, beginning with 
confirmation by the sides of the procedures to be used; 
inspections, within the overall quotas, of the conversions of 
individual B-1Bs; and, finally, a regime for the "intermediate 
period" during which converted B-1Bs would be co-located with those 
still awaiting conversion. 
 
¶8.  (S) The sides also discussed the matter of measuring covers for 
reentry vehicles.  The Russian side argued for removing discussion 
of such covers from the Protocol, while the U.S. side pushed for 
inclusion.  Warner explained that it was important to discourage 
the use of very large, obscuring covers.  The sides agreed to 
return to the issue at a later time. 
 
¶9.  (S) The Russians also once again asked for greater specificity 
in the notifications to be provided on heavy bomber movements.  The 
issue remained unresolved. 
 
¶10.  (S) The sides concluded the morning session with a lengthy 
debate on the necessity of listing facilities in Section VII. The 
sides were able to agree on some reformulations to accommodate the 
Russian desire for generality, but other passages remained in 
brackets. 
 
------------------------------ 
AFTERNOON SESSION, SECTION VII 
------------------------------ 
 
¶11.  (S) Resuming discussion of Section VII at the afternoon 
session, the U.S. side handed over a revised version of Section 
VII.  Warner continued to insist that elimination exhibitions not 
be subtracted from the inspection quota totals.  Warner emphasized 
that this position came from the highest levels of the U.S. 
Government. 
 
¶12.  (S) The U.S. side highlighted revised language on Type 2 
inspection rights for formerly declared facilities, noting that 
heavy bomber air bases would be treated separately at greater 
length under the proposed Agreed Statement.  Warner took pains to 
emphasize that the U.S. side would not countenance considering 
converted heavy bombers nuclear strategic offensive arms following 
their conversion.  A long dispute ensued on the question of 
inspections of heavy bombers equipped for non-nuclear armaments, 
without significant progress. 
 
¶13.  (S) Continuing on with Section VII, Ilin argued for less 
specificity in the document's treatment of items subject to 
pre-inspection movement restrictions.  Warner pushed back, arguing 
that detail was important to avoid ambiguity.  Ilin called for 
bracketing the list of items in Section VII, Paragraph 3 of Part V 
to the Protocol (Reftel), but in the end the sides came to an 
agreement on a modified list. 
 
¶14.  (S) The sides concluded Section VII, leaving some brackets 
reflecting major outstanding issues, including on the treatment of 
heavy bombers equipped for non-nuclear armaments. 
 
-------------- 
SECTION VIII-X 
-------------- 
 
¶15.  (S) After the U.S. side handed over a revised version of 
Section VIII on exhibitions, the sides worked through the text. 
Warner pointed out that regardless of whether it was declared as a 
new or existing type, the United States would need a technical 
characteristics exhibition of the RS-24.  The Russian side 
clarified that it would declare the RS-24 as an existing type and 
so agreed to the U.S. formulation that exhibitions would be 
required of all systems not exhibited under START.  The sides 
worked through the remainder of the text, deferring some issues to 
the Conversion or Elimination Working Group. 
 
¶16.  (S) The sides then worked through Sections IX and X and agreed 
on the text, with a few minor changes. 
 
--------------------------------------------- 
THE FULL PART V OF THE PROTOCOL TO CONFORMING 
--------------------------------------------- 
 
¶17.  (S) The sides agreed to send the full Part V of the Protocol, 
albeit with brackets reflecting remaining significant issues to be 
resolved at a higher level, to the Conforming Group. Warner 
commented that the principal outstanding issues clustered around 
the number of annual inspections allocated and how to handle 
eliminations. 
 
------- 
ANNEXES 
------- 
 
¶18.  (S) Ilin then handed over a very short version of Annex 7, 
noting that it was more of a "working paper" than a comprehensive 
text.  He urged Warner to agree to defer working on the annexes 
until a later date.  Warner responded that the sides would need to 
work through the annexes sooner or later and certainly before 
beginning the formal ratification process.  A discussion followed 
regarding the level of detail required in the annexes, with the 
U.S. side pushing for greater and the Russian side less. 
 
---------------------------------- 
RUSSIAN DECISION-MAKING ON MOBILES 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶19.  (S) During the afternoon session, Ilin criticized the United 
States for singling out mobiles in one of the Sections of the 
Protocol.  Warner commented that the Russian side had developed an 
allergy to any mention of mobiles, however reasonable.  Col 
Zaitsev, sympathetic to Warner's point, admitted that, initially, 
the Russian side had been willing to be more flexible but that 
"somebody talked to Moscow" and Moscow then instructed the Russian 
delegation to be allergic to any focus on mobile systems.  Ilin 
then cut Zaitsev off. 
 
¶20.  (U) Documents exchanged: 
 
- U.S.: 
 
-- U.S. Revised Proposal for Section VII 
 
 
- Russia: 
 
     -- Russian Working Paper on Annex 7 
 
 
¶21.  (U) Participants: 
 
 
UNITED STATES 
 
 
 
Dr. Warner 
 
Mr. Brown 
 
Mr. Buttrick 
 
Mr. Colby (RO) 
 
LTC Leyde 
 
Ms. Pura 
 
Mr. Rust 
 
Ms. Gesse (Int) 
 
 
 
RUSSIA 
 
Col Ilin 
 
Mr. Izrazov 
 
Col Petrov 
 
Col Zaitsev 
 
Ms. Voldopolova 
 
Mr. Pogodin (Int for AM Session) 
 
Ms. Komshilova (Int for PM Session) 
 
 
 
¶22.  (U) Gottemoeller sends. 
LARSON